How things look through an Oregonian's eyes

April 30, 2014

Read all about it in my Strange Up Salem column that's in the current Salem Weekly issue. We've got to get the word out to everybody in town! The May election has revealed the presence of... mind snatchers!

Salem’s invasion of the mind snatchers

The mind control device wasn’t visible.

Not surprising. I figured the Chamber of Commerce surgeons would be too skilled to leave any traces. They’d be the best money could buy. So after an election forum I decided to dive into the belly of the beast.

I looked Sheronne Blasi, a City Council candidate, in the eye. The question had to be asked.

“Have you gotten the Chamber of Commerce brain implant yet? You know, the one that allows Chamber officials to push a button and control how city councilors vote.”

Blasi said, “No, I haven’t.”

Hah! Just the response someone programmed to do the Chamber’s bidding would give!

As a child I repeatedly watched the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers movie. It wasn’t instantly obvious when humans became “pod people” and lost their individuality. The locus of outside control was hidden.

I’ll admit that proof is lacking of a city council candidate brain implant. Alternatively, the mind control could be accomplished by having the biggest source of campaign funds come from the local Chamber of Commerce, Association of Realtors, and Home Builders Association political action committees.

Such is the case with Blasi, Daniel Benjamin, and Jim Lewis, three of the four Chamber-endorsed candidates with similar policy positions who have been called “clones.” The fourth, Steve McCoid, has gotten about 30% of his money from the PACs.

Voters in the May election should keep this in mind. Salem needs creative elected officials who think independently.

Watching the current crop of city councilors do their thing inspired my Chamber of Commerce brain implant hypothesis. For sure, something is making them act in weirdly robotic ways.

Important City Council decisions are made with very little discussion. Motions often are passed in the blink of an eye, frequently on 9-0 votes. Councilors are strangely agreeable with each other, even when they represent constituencies with distinctly different political leanings and social values.

I watch regimented, scripted City Council meetings and pray in my godless way:

“Dear Lord who doesn’t exist, bring us a city councilor who speaks his or her mind with honesty, forthrightness, and conviction. Give us a bold individualistic truth-teller rather than a bland repeater of tall tales conjured up by special interests.”

This isn’t really a liberal versus conservative thing. Though I’m a progressive, I get bothered by dissembling on both ends of the political spectrum.

For example, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, a group I usually support, endorsed Sheronne Blasi — along with the other Ward 2 candidates, Tom Andersen and Bradd Swank.

But Blasi supports the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid for $400 million third bridge proposal. Andersen and Swank oppose this massive waste of taxpayer dollars, which would significantly increase Salem’s carbon footprint and harm the viability of downtown.

Though I noticed two photos of Selter at the top of the page, I hurried past them to study what I hoped would be a serious post-modern feminist critique of the objectification of women -- a practice that I have heard about, but naturally have no personal experience with, given my lifelong heterosexual male practice of paying attention only to a woman's inner essence, not her bodily form.

The article, sadly, turned out to be a complaint that Selter's white girl self-booty-deification was a ripoff of big-ass-worshipping that communities of color have been engaging in for a long time. The author, Kara Brown, felt so strongly about this she wrote it in ALL CAPS.

JENNIFER LOPEZ KICKED OFF THE POPULARIZATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF BIG ASSES IN THE MAINSTREAM–A TRAIT THAT HAS BEEN PRESENT AND CELEBRATED IN BLACK AND LATINO COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA SINCE BASICALLY FOREVER.

So I decided to conduct my own feminist research into the Jen Selter phenomenon, who has been featured in Vanity Fair (this is a photo from the magazine).

I started with her Instagram account.

Right away I noticed that Jen Selter has over 3,200,000 followers who have ogled her 400+ posts. Wanting to keep tabs of this outrageous objectification of a curvaceous young woman, I increased her "Follow" numbers by one more.

My first pass through her Instagram photos went fairly quickly, since I mainly wanted to get the lay of the land regarding Jen Selter, so to speak. She did indeed emphasize a certain posterior area of her female geography, though her chest came in for close attention also.

I then attempted what I thought might be impossible for me: put myself in the frame of mind of a man who looked upon Selter only as a gorgeous collection of body parts, someone to be fantasized about as a sex object rather than a living, breathing, loving, learning human being.

As difficult as it was for my elevated male-feminist mind to do, I went through Selter's Instagram and Facebook photos more slowly another time, trying to imagine which ones would appeal to me the most if I was the sort of crude ass-and-boobs objectifying man which I so obviously am not.

The top three results of my research follow.

I will, of course, continue to monitor Jen Selter's Instagram account and Facebook page for even more egregious examples of her objectification. I've re-checked her photos for a third time, and will keep on doing so in my research efforts regarding her misguided attempt to reign as the "butt selfie queen."

Hey, someone has to do it. I'm pretty sure most of her 3,200,000 Instagram followers aren't motivated by the pure feminist reasons that led me to spend so much time gazing upon Selter's ass and boobs.

It takes a special skill of sorts to spend about $250 million on a Cover Oregon website that is almost completely useless. Achieving that level of abject incompetence is impressive in a certain disturbing way.

Nice to see that Oregon can be made fun of on a national stage, Oliver's new Last Week Tonight show. A video of his right-on rant can be watched here. (scroll down to bottom of page)

April 26, 2014

I had high hopes for the supposed newly-local freshly-designed Salem Statesman Journal web site. But my first impression of it was Ugh! Subsequent impressions haven't been any better.

I've been a frequent visitor to the online Statesman Journal, even though I'm a print subscriber.

My main reasons: (1) Commenting on a story, or reading comments from others; (2) Saving a PDF copy of a recent story; (3) Seeing if there is any breaking news that will appear in tomorrow's paper.

The new design makes all of this more difficult. But an even bigger gripe is the whole look and feel of the Statesman Journal web site, which is a clone of the USA Today web site, and not surprisingly looks almost exactly like the web sites of other Gannett newspapers.

(Gannett owns USA Today and many other media outlets, including the Statesman Journal.)

Here's home page views captured on my 13 inch Macbook Pro.

New Statesman Journal web site

USA Today web site

Layfayette Journal & Courier web site

So now our local newspaper's web site looks almost exactly like USA Today and most other Gannett papers. Which would be OK, though disturbingly uncreative, if the corporate site design was so marvelous it begged to be duplicated.

However, it isn't.

I wish I'd captured a screen shot of how the Statesman Journal web site looked until a few days ago. But the old Statesman Journal looked like other Gannett newspapers before most of them were shifted over to the USA Today web site design.

At least one Gannett newspaper still had the old design that was shared by the Statesman Journal. Here it is.

Tallahassee newspaper web site

I liked the look and feel of the old Statesman Journal web site.

Stories in the current issue were easy to find. The emphasis was on headlines, not on images. There was a section of "most commented" and "most popular" stories. Comments appeared on a page connected with the story, making them easy to read. Clicking on the print icon brought up a nifty feature that let you reformat the story to save printed pages, or save the story as a cleanly formatted PDF file.

All that is gone now.

The new-and-not-improved Statesman Journal web site has the same jangly over-hyped look of USA Today. Hey, Gannett, I don't need a big chunk of the laptop screen space taken up with a photo of the Marion County trash burner, which, wow, has a smokestack and a big building.

That tells me nothing. I want to know what is going on with the trash burner, what the news is about supposed burning of fetuses (which apparently didn't happen, but that's a journalistic issue, not a web site design issue).

Here's the New York Times home page. I happily pay $15 a month for online access to the Times. The web site is simple, clean, and wonderfully easy to navigate.

New York times web site

For contrast, let's take another look at the Statesman Journal home page.

The New York Times respects its readers.

That's how I feel whenever I visit its web site. The focus is on making its stories readily available to the newspaper's subscribers. The NYT site looks and feels a lot like a "real" newspaper. I can easily navigate to stories I'm interested in, just as I can do by turning the pages of a print newspaper.

With the Statesman Journal and other USA Today clones, I don't feel like browsing around a newspaper web site. The experience isn't pleasant. It is jarring, filled with unnecessary graphics and poor navigation options.

Each time I visit the Statesman Journal site I have to choose the "list view," which is a bit more pleasant than "grid view." Not much, though. Most stories in the current issue aren't listed. I have to click on "show more news" to find them.

I hope the Statesman Journal will rethink its decision to jump onto the USA Today web site design bandwagon.

Of course, I'm confident the directive came from Gannett headquarters, so almost certainly our local newspaper won't be able to have a local look and feel on its web site, no matter how its subscribers feel.

Along that line, here's some subscriber comments left on a Statesman Journal story about the new web site design:

I know that this will take a bit of getting used to, but I am pretty sure that I hate the new format and it will mean less visits to the site in the future. Recently I have downsized my subscription to just Wednesdays and weekends because of the huge price increase, and now I think I might be downsizing my visits to the webpage because it takes longer to find things and I have to wade through more trash to get to anything worth reading. Not an improvement, IMHO.

-------------------

It's very cluttered looking and seems to be a dumbed down version of news - lots of pretty pictures little substance.

-------------------

I thought the SJ website was much easier to navigate in its earlier incarnation. It now seems like a clone of USA Today, a site that is cumbersome and balky. I've navigated USA Today for a while but never gotten used to it. It's as is some "focus group" has decided that need they to load on the flashy photos and multimedia because the public has no patience for "mere" text. Also: Why do the reader comments from previous days all seem to be erased?

-------------------

Sorry but the adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is said for a reason. This is not an improvement. I guess I give up on the Statesman and will just read the Oregonian instead.

-------------------

It's prettier, but will take some getting used to. Sometimes synergy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

April 24, 2014

Not an uncommon experience here in not-cool-by-comparison Salem, Oregon -- where we are regularly and spectacularly overshadowed by nearby much more with-it cities: Portland, Corvallis, Eugene.

Thanks to No 3rd Bridge plus my comrades in local blogging, Salem Breakfast on Bikes and LoveSalem, I learned that Salem-Keizer Transit, a.k.a. Cherriots, is poised to cave on demanding that a new bridge across the Willamette be mass-transit friendly.

The Cherriots board is meeting as I write this.

Maybe they will change their mind at the last moment. Regardless, just the fact that a mass-transit organization is willing to kick mass-transit under the bus (to not coin a phrase) of third bridge planning is disturbing.

On the agenda for the Thursday, April 24th, Cherriots Board meeting (whole agenda and packet here) is a proposed change to the terms of support for the Salem River Crossing "Salem Alternative." Having run into friction from the Oversight Team on transit, Cherriots seems willing to back down.

...A change from "include as integral" to "consider" is a meaningful softening and retreat.

I don't really know how important this is as a component of designing the "Salem Alternative." The project's awfulness is so great that the difference between bad and badder may not be very important. In essential ways these details are lipstick on very smelly pig. Additionally, right now the project does not have a clear path to funding, and in some important ways this is all just posturing and rhetoric.

Still, if this folly keeps going, imagine in ten or twenty years that the bridge and highway could be formally designed without "park and ride lots, transit centers, bus queue jump lanes, and transit signal priority." This project endorsement would permit just that!

It's also interesting that these design components are framed up as "amenities" instead of essentials. That these things can't be insisted on is a measure of how far from multi-modal with complete streets this project really is.

Even more, it's a sad example of how far we remain from a "new vision" like that of Gil Penalosa's. Not only is Cherriots not able to say "we don't need it," but they can't even say "transit design is integral" to new transportation infrastructure.

Consider emailing the board and reminding them about Gil Penalosa, the power of transit to reduce congestion, and the folly of the giant bridge and highway.

It's weird that Cherriots was one of the sponsors of Gil Penalosa's talk last February about how Salem can become a much more walkable/bikable city, which requires good mass transit (every trip on mass transit begins and ends with a walk, said Penalosa; plus, more mass transit means fewer cars, which obviously is good for walking/biking).

This new news, that Cherriots not only remains supportive of what LoveSalem accurately calls the Bridgasaurus Boondogglus, but is poised to cave on demanding "park and ride lots, transit centers, bus queue jump lanes, and transit signal priority" be part of the bridge design -- that really shows how wussy Salem-Keizer Transit is when it comes to challenging outdated transportation notions.

Earth to Cherriots: the times they are a'changing. People are not nearly as wedded to their cars as they used to be. Vehicle counts on the existing two bridges have been flat for years even as the population has grown.

Both young people and old people want alternatives to automobiles. (Middle-aged people too.)

Speaking as a 65 year-old, my wife and I know that one day likely one or both of us won't be able to drive anymore. Moving from our rural south Salem home would be tough. But we'd consider relocating in the city of Salem if we found a desirable place to live.

Part of "desirable" means being able to get around without driving. However, currently Salem is the only capital city in a wide swath of the western United States that doesn't have weekend bus service. Eugene's is far superior. Which is one reason, among many, to vote for Ward 2 City Council candidate Tom Andersen, who used to be President of the Lane Transit Board of Directors.

At the end of his post Walker of LoveSalem talks about what young people want, transportation-wise. Salem is shooting itself in the foot economically when Cherriots, the Chamber of Commerce, and other third bridge advocates fail to realize that freeway'ish roads and sprawl aren't what attract people and businesses to an area.

To the Salem Area Mass Transit District (Cherriots) Board:

Gee, we could either bow to the wishes of the Chamber of the 1% and funnel hundreds of millions into their pockets by building a neighborhood-destroying transit-impeding Eisenhower-era highway through town to open up more sprawl development opportunities (for that same crowd of 1%ers) or we could, for just pennies on the dollar compared to that, give Salem a functioning transit system that let's everyone in Salem participate in work, play, schooling and worship seven days a week, which would attract the kind of people we need for vitality and real development that adds value to the community, instead of just mines it for the benefit of the few.

If Cherriots refuses to stand up and name, shame, and reject the demands of the anonymous bullies on the "Salem River Crossing" Oversight Team who hate even the idea of thinking about transit options, then Cherriots board is acting like an abused wife, constantly being beaten and abused and groveling to ask for forgiveness from her abuser, while making excuses and enabling that same abuse.

There is no way that anyone whose duty it is to promote the interests of mass transit in Salem can support watering down the already weak tea resolution on this misbegotten money-grab, turning what should be a full-throated "Hell No" on the "Salem River Crossing" into an even more servile statement of no principles.

7. Survey: Little car love among urban MillennialsMore than half the adults between ages 18 and 34 questioned about transportation said they would consider moving to another city if it had more and better options for getting around, according to a new national survey. Nearly half of the young adult vehicle owners surveyed agreed they would seriously consider giving up their car if they could count on a range of transportation options. USA Today, April 24

After the meeting I asked Blasi how she got the OLCV endorsement, given her support for the third bridge. She told me, "I don't know."

Well, I wanted to know. So I emailed an OLCV staffer, asking how Blasi got the organization's endorsement. I also said:

I note that OLCV endorsed each of the three candidates running in Ward 2. This also seems a bit strange. What difference does the OLCV endorsement make if each candidate gets it?

Plus, Andersen and Swank are stronger environmental advocates. Blasi is the Chamber of Commerce choice. She only recently moved into the neighborhood, changing her voter registration to D from I. Word “on the street” is that Blasi has higher office aspirations and is a business lobby wolf trying to wear environmental sheep’s clothing.

Anyway, I’m perplexed by how she got a OLCV endorsement given her support for a Third Bridge. I realize the OLCV questions and answers are confidential. I’m just looking for some comments from you about why she got an endorsement, and also why every candidate in Ward 2 got an endorsement, which seems to make them equal in OLCV eyes.

I'm still waiting for a decent answer. I did get a reply, but I was told that I couldn't share that response on my blog. So I wrote back and asked for a blog-shareable answer.

I’m sure you realize that I’m a strong OLCV supporter. What I’m trying to do is prevent a pro-sprawl Chamber of Commerce candidate, Blasi, from getting enough votes in her race against two truly progressive candidates to make it into a November election runoff.

Currently Blasi is able to make campaign speeches where she says “I favor building the third bridge” and “I’m endorsed by OLCV.” When they hear that most people, including me, assume OLCV favors building the third bridge, because this is the biggest environmental issue being discussed in Salem right now.

So you can see the logic here. One of these things happened in the OLCV endorsement process, neither of which make OLCV look good. The question is: which is true?

(1) OLCV endorsed Blasi without ever asking her about her position on the third bridge, even though this was a key issue that the Chamber of Commerce asked about, and was one reason Blasi got the Chamber of Commerce endorsement.

(2) OLCV endorsed Blasi knowing that she favors building the $400 million third bridge, but this wasn’t considered to be significant, so she got the same thumbs-up from OLCV as the other candidates, Andersen and Swank, did.

Regarding (2), this also would be more than a little astounding.

Let’s imagine that her answers to other OLCV questions were just the same as Andersen’s and Swank’s other than her support of the third bridge. Since OLCV endorsed all three candidates, this would mean that building the hugely expensive, sprawl-inducing, downtown-destroying third bridge was considered an insignificant environmental issue.

...So please let me know if the local OLCV committee asked the Ward 2 candidates about their position on the third bridge. If they didn’t, this means that the OLCV endorsement doesn’t mean very much, if anything. It was based on incomplete information and a casual “vetting” process. Voters then would know that OLCV didn’t endorse Blasi because of her position on the third bridge, which is decidedly anti-environment.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Well, i'm still looking forward to that. A friend who did some checking around on her own tells me that it looks like the local OLCV committee Ward 2 endorsement process isn't for anyone outside of the organization to know about.

So at the moment it isn't possible to know how Blasi got the same endorsement as Tom Andersen and Bradd Swank, either of whom would be a much better city councillor than Blasi.

It's weird that the Salem Chamber of Commerce is more open about how it makes endorsements than the Oregon League of Conservation Voters is. The questions posed to Andersen, Blasi, and Swank are on the Chamber's web site, along with their answers.

I wish OLCV was more forthcoming about why Andersen, Blasi, and Swank were considered to be equally deserving of the conservation group's endorsement.

As noted above, logically either the local OLCV committee failed to even consider the Ward 2 candidates' positions on building a third bridge -- which was the first question asked by the Salem Chamber of Commerce -- or the committee felt that it didn't matter, conservation-wise, whether a $400 million Bridgeasaurus Boondoglus tramples Salem's environment.

Bottom line: Tom Andersen and Bradd Swank are the Ward 2 candidates who deserve the vote of anyone who values sustainability, environmental protection, livability, and long-term economic success for Salem.

Saddling residents with a $400 million tax increase for an unneeded bridge is crazy, but this is what Blasi wants to do.

The ninth, Ward 2 candidate Tom Andersen, was on an overseas business trip. A campaign supporter made a speech for him, but I don't believe she voted on the hand-raising questions. She did say in her speech that Andersen favors a new police facility away from the Civic Center.

The City Club audience laughed and applauded when all of the candidates' hands remained firmly planted in their laps when the moderator asked for a hand to be raised by those in favor of a new Civic Center police headquarters.

Time to put this bad idea to pasture, Mayor Peterson and City Manager Norris. Nobody is buying your over-priced proposal to pave over Mirror Pond and use taxpayer dollars for hugely expensive underground parking on an already crowded downtown site.

All candidates were in favor of seismic upgrades to the Civic Center, though. The message is clear: Yes to a lower cost police facility away from the Civic Center and to City Hall/Library seismic upgrades. No to a police facility at the Civic Center.

April 17, 2014

I just put this good news update on last night's blog post, "City of Salem kills more downtown trees for no good reason."

UPDATE:After emailing Steve Ross (one of the property owners) this morning, I got a reply that he is open to trimming the trees if this can be worked out with everyone's approval. Steve said, "I love trees also." Great news. I asked to be kept informed as this approach to saving the trees moves forward. Many thanks to Steve. And to Elwood Newhouse of Elwood's Tree Service, who offered up his professional opinion of the trees' condition.

Elwood said the High Street trees could and should be saved, since they are healthy, structurally sound, and not causing any problems to the sidewalk that require their removal.

Like Steve Ross said, trimming of branches and maybe some roots is all that is needed, along with sidewalk grinding. (This recently was done to the sidewalk in front of Andaluz, just up the street from these trees, where minor sidewalk lift was evident.)

Hopefully this means that the trees will be saved, as several independent professional arborists have advised.

I don't blame the property owners for wanting to have the trees removed, since the City of Salem erroneously told them that the trees were diseased.

I do blame Urban Forester Jan Staszewski and Public Works Director Peter Fernandez for not getting a second or third opinion on the condition of the Upright European Hornbeams.

Cutting down beautiful mature downtown street trees that are 40 to 50 years old, 35 to 40 feet high, and 12 to 19 inches in diameter shouldn't be done lightly. Very good reasons for doing so have to be supported by solid arborist evidence.

Which raises a question for me: if the City of Salem Public Works Department was wrong when it decided these trees should be cut down rather than pruned, what else is the Department wrong about?

Meaning, if solid facts and expert advice aren't guiding Public Works decision-making, then what else is?

April 16, 2014

UPDATE: After emailing Steve Ross (one of the property owners) this morning, I got a reply that he is open to trimming the trees if this can be worked out with everyone's approval. Steve said, "I love trees also." Great news. I asked to be kept informed as this approach to saving the trees moves forward. Many thanks to Steve. And to Elwood Newhouse of Elwood's Tree Service, who offered up his professional opinion of the trees' condition.

"It's all bullshit." This is a conversation opener that's guaranteed to capture my interest.

Especially when I'm talking with someone about why the City of Salem wants to cut down three large, beautiful Upright European Hornbeam trees on downtown's High Street, just south of the Elsinore Theatre.

About a year ago the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, outraged tree lovers (along with lovers of ethical, open government) when he ordered the removal of five beautiful trees adjacent to the downtown U.S. Bank building, ignoring the advice of expert arborists and the City's own Shade Tree Advisory Commitee.

I'm working on an exposé of this shady episode: "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank Tree Killings." Subtitle is The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it.

Sadly, Fernandez and Co. are up to their downtown tree-killing tricks again.

The High Street trees also are being cut down for no good reason. I know this, because just as I did with the U.S. Bank trees, I made a public records request for documents related to the High Street tree removals.

The "It's all bullshit" person told me that it seemed like the trees were healthy and weren't causing problems to the sidewalk.

Yet I knew that the property owners who had requested that the trees be removed, Steve Toney and Steve Ross, had claimed in their application that the trees "were decaying and cracking the sidewalk." Turns out this isn't true.

So why are the three trees going to be killed and replaced with much smaller (3 inch caliper) trees of the same species? I have no idea. There's no good reason to remove the trees. It's all bullshit. Here's proof of the B.S.

I asked an independent arborist, Elwood Newhouse of Elwood's Tree Service, to give me his assessment of the trees. My wife and I have talked with Elwood when we've used his company to deal with trees on our property in rural south Salem.

Elwood went and inspected the High Street trees. He'd already taken a look at them when the City asked him to give a bid for removing them. (Elwood's Tree Service is a City contractor.) These are the email messages I got from Elwood:

The trees are healthy and are causing a very small amount of lift to sidewalk like a lot of other street trees. This problem can easily be fixed by grinding the small lift. Roots can be pruned along with the canopy for better structure. The trees have a great defense system and will tolerate some wounding. There are many things that can be done to preserve these trees. So in a nut shell in my opinion the trees are worth saving.

------------------------

Okay I'm here again to look at the cavities of concern. The cavities were more than likely caused by sun scalding when some of the lower branches were removed for clearances. The wound wood that is forming around the cavities are a good sign the trees are healthy. Also looking at the last 5 years shoot growth is very consistent. This species of tree compartmentalize the wounds very well. If these cavities warrant the removal of these trees then we should clear cut Bush Park.

Well, maybe that is next up for Public Works Director Fernandez -- clear-cutting Bush Park.

Because he approved removing all three trees, even though the City Shade Tree Advisory Committee recommended saving the middle tree. And the Committee only heard Urban Forester Jan Staszewski's opinion about the trees. No public hearing or outside testimony from expert arborists was taken before Fernandez issued his kill order.

But there's more: this High Street tree removal outrage is even more outrageous.

Staszewski didn't know if small cracks and lifts in the sidewalk were caused by tree roots. However, he claimed there were large pockets of decay in the main limbs and the trunk. As we've seen, Elwood Newhouse disagreed, saying "The trees are healthy."

The tale now turns to another application Toney and Ross had to make in order to have the trees removed -- a Historic Review, because the trees are in the downtown HIstoric District. This was an administrative review by Kimberli Fitzgerald, Senior HIstoric Planner.

In her decision approving the tree removals she said "The street trees are not diseased." Whoa? How could that be, when the Public Works Director said they should be cut down because they're decaying? Instead, Fitzgerald said the applicant notes that the trees are so large, they are affecting the sidewalk.

But Staszewski wasn't sure if the trees were causing any problems to the sidewalk. And Elwood Newhouse said the trees are both healthy and not creating any sidewalk problems requiring their removal. The inescapable conclusion remains: "It's all bullshit."

The only way to cut through the B.S. was to appeal the Historic Review decision. However, I was told by Fitzgerald that I didn't have standing to appeal. The downtown neighborhood association, CAN-DO, did have standing, though.

Which leads me to my final outrage.

I figured that since one of the CAN-DO goals is "Support streetscaping in the neighborhood," the neighborhood association would want to appeal a B.S. tree removal decision by the City of Salem. So I spent a lot of time the past 10 days sending information about the High Street trees to CAN-DO board members. Such as:Download Background info for CAN-DO Word

I responded to every question they asked. I offered to pay the appeal fee. I said that because I've had a lot of experience with land use appeals, I'd be glad to handle the appeal to the Historic Landmarks Commission if CAN-DO wanted. I filled out the appeal form and wrote a required addendum that outlined the reasons an appeal was being made.Download Addendum to appeal Word

Because Sarah Owens, a CAN-DO board member, was concerned about whether there were valid grounds for appealing the Historic Review tree removal decision, I asked a knowledgeable land use/environmental law attorney, Sean Malone, to review the decision.

At last night's CAN-DO board meeting I shared Malone's opinion: there were indeed good grounds for appealing the Historic Review decision. I told the board members what they were.

I told them that Elwood Newhouse had inspected the trees, finding they were healthy, structurally sound, and not causing any sidewalk problems that required removal.

To me, appealing the Historic Review decision was a no-brainer.

There were no downsides and some appealing upsides: notably, potentially saving the trees. Yes, I told the CAN-DO board, virtually every legal appeal is uncertain. Winning isn't guaranteed.

But if CAN-DO doesn't appeal, the trees will be killed. For no good reason. That is virtually guaranteed, barring a cosmic ray striking the brains of Steve Toney and Steve Ross, somehow altering their desire to have the trees removed.

(Note: these aren't the building owners' trees. They are the public's trees. They are worth tens of thousands of dollars, likely, given their age -- at least 40 years -- and size. Toney and Ross complained that the trees were dropping leaves on their building's awning. Staszewski, in a part of his staff report that I agreed with, clued them in: "The trees produce natural litter; leaves and twigs. Removal of tree debris is a common maintenance practice."]

After I made my appeal request to the CAN-DO neighborhood association board last night, they tabled discussion of this issue. I left the meeting. I wasn't able to be part of the board discussion of the appeal. More than twelve hours later, I haven't heard anything from the CAN-DO chairperson, Rebekah Engle.

The appeal deadline was 5 pm today. I offered to pay for and file the appeal documents. All CAN-DO had to do was agree to appeal, and have Engle sign the forms I'd prepared. I left the completed forms with a board member.

Hopefully the forms will be recycled, instead of thrown away. They sure aren't going to be used to try to save the trees.

It hurts to know that the Upright European Hornbeams will be cut down for no good reason. Heck, I don't even know what the bad reason is. The two decisions by the Public Works Department concluded that the trees are healthy, and they aren't causing significant sidewalk problems.

I'm sad. Also, angry.

I stopped by High Street this afternoon and took some photos of the trees. I sent them a thought message: "I'm sorry you're condemned to die. You're only 40 or so years old. You could live to be 120. You clean the air, beautify the street, keep people cool, and suck up stormwater. Just want you to know I did everything I could to save you."

Sure wish the CAN-DO board had felt the same way.

When I made my pitch to the board for them to appeal the tree removal decision, I told them that I love trees, downtown, and open transparent government. I optimistically assumed that I was speaking to people who shared those passions.

Seems like I wasn't.

Almost certainly the trees are going to die. Like I've said, and Elwood Newhouse confirms, for no good reason.

Shame on you, City of Salem Public Works Department. And shame on the CAN-DO neighborhood association for not appealing this unjust act. Just as with the U.S. Bank trees, you sat on your hands when you should have been signing an appeal form.

April 14, 2014

Scott Bassett, the candidate voters should choose in the Ward 4 City Council race, spoke at last Saturday's Salem CityWatch meeting.

I liked Scott's new term for the Salem Chamber of Commerce's Create Jobs PAC: the Create Clones PAC.

He's right.

The four candidates endorsed by the Chamber -- Sheronne Blasi, Steve McCoid, Daniel Benjamin, Jim Lewis -- all have the same tax-and-spend position on the unneeded $400 million bridge across the Willamette that has been proposed. The bridge would take hundreds of dollars a year out of taxpayer pockets for decades, yet won't help with rush hour congestion and will destroy dozens of homes and businesses.

Three of the four candidates have the same treasurer and consultant, Charles Swank, who also is the treasurer for the Create Jobs/Create Clones PAC. Read all about it in "Salem Chamber of Commerce tries to buy City Council seats."

Bassett pointed out that about a quarter of a million dollars aimed at influencing elections has been spent by the Chamber of Commerce during the past six years.

Do Salem citizens really want any more City Councillors who have been bought and paid for to do the bidding of a few members of the Chamber of Commerce who control election endorsements? I don't think so.

They want a real Watchdog at City Hall, Scott Bassett's campaign slogan. Lovers of both dogs and good government will thrill to this list of reasons to elect Bassett that were put together by a supporter:

TOP 10 REASONS TO ELECT SCOTT BASSETT TO THE SALEM CITY COUNCIL

10) If we elect Scott Bassett our City government will get a new leash on life.

9) If we elect Scott he will be dogged in his pursuit of wasteful City spending.

8) If the Council is tempted to close any more fire stations or reduce library hours further, Scott will give them paws for thought.

7) As a City Councilor Scott will be able to spot waste, and see howl we can save money.

6) If we elect Scott he will hound his fellow Councilors to be more open and transparent.

5) The next time our Mayor wants to spend $5,000 of scarce General Fund money to make a video Scott will boxer in, setter down and pointer to a better decision.

April 12, 2014

My wife and I do not consider ourselves great artists. However, if you wish to acknowledge us as such after watching the video we made today, feel free.

When art just happens; when a soul-stirring creation is born from the ever flowing well-spring of spontaneity; when the actions of man, woman, and dog flow together in a never-to-be-seen-again moment (well, 105 second/moments, to be exact) -- such can only be called great art.

Though of course Laurel and I are too humble to call our You Tube video that. Again, it is for others to decide whether the title of this blog post applies to "Zu Zu finds a surprise note!"

One take was, um, all it took for us to honor our granddaughter's seventh birthday.

(Caution: this excerpt from the story begins with an offensive word, Salemites. The official term for residents of Salem is Salemian. I know this, because I have issued that Official Proclamation from the height of my Strange Up Salem perch. Statesman Journal, Obey! )

Salemites are passionate about their trees.

That passion was displayed in a most public way last spring, when restaurateur David Rosales got arrested after confronting employees at U.S. Bank, which cut down five healthy trees in front of its downtown building.

But a quieter mourning often takes place throughout the city’s neighborhoods.

Each day, Portland General Electric has 40 crews out trimming trees from around its 3,800 miles of power lines.

PGE serves an area running from Portland to south of Salem. By law, it must prevent storm-related power outages by keeping limbs away from the lines.

“People understandably like their trees. Sometimes it’s difficult to see them trimmed,” PGE spokesman Steve Corson said

That was the case on 23rd Street SE this week, where each and every tree on the block got an exuberant trim.

The sight was heartbreaking to Melanie Zermer, who has lived on the street for more than a quarter century.

“In the past, PGE has trimmed the trees in a way that has not changed the look of the canopy much. But today it is different,” Zermer said. “What is happening today is a hack job.”

One neighbor called the city’s urban forester, Jan Staszewski.

“As we wait to hear back, knowing there is little if anything we can do to change the situation, the sound of the chain saws go on,” Zermer said. “And the trees are bleeding.”

I feel for Zermer.

I don't know whether the 23rd Street trees were trimmed inappropriately. But I sure do know that the U.S. Bank trees were cut down unnecessarily. Here's the comment I left this morning on the Statesman Journal story.

Ah...the U.S. Bank trees -- five large, healthy, beautiful Zelkovas that were cut down by the City of Salem at the request of the bank for no good reason. I know this -- there was no good reason to kill the trees -- because I'm the possessor of $741 worth of public records documents that the City made me pay for when I wanted to know how and why Salem's "TreeGate" took place.

(Factoid: the person who denied my request for a public interest fee waiver was Peter Fernandez, the same Peter Fernandez, Public Works Director, who made a backroom deal with U.S. Bank President Ryan Allbrittton, now the Chamber of Commerce president, to remove the trees even though there was no defensible reason to. It's a small world at City Hall.)

Salemians who are outraged by how the City handles street tree issues will be even more outraged when they read my expose of the U.S. Bank tree debacle. I've started writing the report. I hope to have it ready for reading by the end of April. I'm calling it "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings." Subtitle: "The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it."

The street tree madness continues. Now Urban Forester Jan Staszewski and Fernandez have approved removal of three healthy, large, beautiful trees on High Street south of the Elsinore for (make a guess)... no good reason. Expert arborists have told me the trees aren't causing any problems with the sidewalk that require them to be cut down, and aren't diseased.

When I asked the Urban Forester for documents relating to the decision to kill the High Street trees, which was made without any public hearing or testimony, I was told to (make a guess)... submit a public records request. I did that last Friday. Haven't even gotten word yet on how much it will cost me this time to learn how public officials are ignoring the public interest.

Mayor Peterson denies assertions by lots of people, including me, that the City of Salem does things in a secretive manner. I wish City staff treated her like they do ordinary citizens. Then she'd have to spend a lot of money and time to file public records requests to learn what so-called public servants are doing at City Hall. It isn't a pretty picture. My "Outrage" report will convince you of that.

Below is how the cover looks in my current draft of the report. I'm enjoying writing it, though it is painful to rekindle the memories of this shameful event. What energizes me is knowing that the truth of how the U.S. Bank trees came to be cut down has to be told.

April 07, 2014

Before the current issue came out, A.P. Walther, the publisher of Salem Weekly, told me that the cover story would be the 10 year anniversary of our town's alternative newspaper.

A.P. asked if I had any favorite stories from that decade of reporting on issues that the Statesman Journal, our decidedly traditional newspaper, almost entirely ignores.

I replied:

Hmmmm. I have thoughts. Not a favorite story. My basic thought is…

Gratitude.

So many times (like every issue), I’ve been grateful that Salem has an alternative newspaper voice. Salem Weekly makes me realize that there are many people in this town who think and feel like I do, even though I’m not in personal touch with them.

I remember a quote from someone whose name I’ve forgotten: “We read to know that we are not alone.” So true. Salem Weekly has made me feel less lonely over the years. If all I had to read here was the Statesman Journal, it’d be more than a little depressing.

I think you do a great job. “You” including everybody at Salem Weekly. But especially you specifically. I don’t really know how much effort, time, and commitment it takes to keep the paper going. I can sort of guess, though. And that impresses me.

A few months ago I was in my car, first in line at a stop light in downtown Salem, idly gazing at the familiar intersection of Court and Liberty.

Then an unfamiliar sight wheeled past. It was A.P. Walther on his cargo bike, delivering the new issue of Salem Weekly (which comes out every two weeks) to the paper boxes scattered around downtown.

Until then I wasn't aware that the publisher personally distributes copies of his free newspaper. On a bike, no less.

Marvelous!

The image is still clear in my mind of A.P. pedaling by, blond ponytail and all, pulling a box filled with Salem Weekly copies. I remember thinking, "There's no way the Statesman Journal publisher would be doing this."

Today I met A.P. walking down a Liberty Street sidewalk as I was heading the other way toward my Tai Chi class above the Court Street Dairy Lunch. We had an enjoyable conversation. I'm always impressed with how well A.P. is tuned-in to Salem goings-on.

Salem, like a person, has many sides.

Our city isn't unidimensional. What I love about Salem Weekly is the newspaper's commitment to revealing sides of Salem that go underreported and undernoticed. After all, this is the job of an alternative publication: presenting viewpoints that aren't getting enough attention from the mainstream media.

I'm pleased to play a part in this. I've got to confess that when I first looked at the cover of the 10 Year Anniversary issue my non-humble mind zeroed right in on the top left corner.

Dude, I said to myself, it's the Strange Up Salem cover!Your debut column.

Sweet. I'll guote from that kickoff piece.

At the risk of sounding like a phone sex line… I know what you want. You’re hungry for it. You’re hot for it. You’ve gotten tantalizing glimpses of what you lust for, but it’s been frustratingly out of reach.

What I’m talking about is a stranger Salem. Meaning, a city with sights, sounds, people, places, and other delights that make us go ooh, ah, and give me more rather than ho-hum, so lame.

Through this Salem Weekly column and other ways, I’m out to Strange Up Salem. In the very best sense of “strange.” Our city can be out of the ordinary: creative, passionate, energetic, artistic, forward looking, individualistic, vibrant, soul-satisfying.

We no longer need to accept Salem being the blandburger stuck between the spicy buns of Portland and Eugene. This town can be excitingly meaty (or tofu’y; I’m a vegetarian) in its own sensuously special ways.

How will this happen? What will speed up the evolution of Salem into the place we long for it to be?Us. You and me. Everybody.

April 05, 2014

Read all about it in the Salem newspaper, Salem Weekly, that prints what you won't read in the Statesman Journal.

In this case, facts and opinion about how the Salem Chamber of Commerce and other special interest PACs (political action committees) are spending big money on City Council races that should be all about the public interest.

Four weeks before ballots will be mailed, notable disparities can be seen between funding amounts and sources for Salem city council candidates. The totals suggest lopsided special interest funding.

Voters concerned about the influence of special interest money have other options. Alternative candidates are running for each of these seats on May 20th.

ORESTAR, the Secretary of State’s system for tracking Oregon election contributions, shows that as of the last day of March, three candidates have already received the bulk of their contributions from the Home Builders Association of Polk and Marion County PAC, the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce Create Jobs PAC and the Salem Association of Realtor’s PAC and their members.

These sources account for more than 96% of the financing for candidates Steve McCoid in Ward 4, Daniel Benjamin in Ward 6 and Jim Lewis in Ward 8.

Phil Krug left a comment on the story. Thanks for doing this, Phil.

Stay informed… I have put together a simple web site that will allow you to track all funding amounts and sources for Salem city council candidates. This site contains all the ORESTAR links for each Salem city council candidate and any candidate web site links. Please visit http://oregoncandidates.com/

Recently I heard that when a Monmouth-Independence Chamber of Commerce member was asked if the organization got involved in election endorsements, the answer was “Are you kidding? This is a small place. We all work together.”

I wish the Salem Chamber had that attitude. But instead of broadly representing this area’s business community, it acts like a narrow special interest group.

Here’s the primary thing the Chamber says it cares about: “Will this measure/candidate support or hinder the ability of private sector employers to grow their businesses and create jobs?”

Nothing about quality of life, fiscal responsibility, parks and recreation, good schools, community involvement, open government, a vibrant downtown, and other issues that are vitally important to Salem citizens.

So remember this when you see a City Council candidate has gotten big bucks from the Salem Chamber of Commerce.

Do you want to be represented by someone beholden to the Chamber’s Create Jobs PAC, or someone independently minded who cares about the entire community?

Here's more disturbing information that someone sent me about intimate connections between the Chamber's Create Jobs PAC and three City Council candidates.

It's a small world in Salem: the Treasurer of the Create Jobs PAC just happens to be the treasurer and consultant for Steve McCoid, Daniel Benjamin, and Jim Lewis.

Not only are three special interest-backed City Council candidates dependent on the same three groups for over 96% of their campaign contributions, they have the same treasurer and consultant.

Two of the key people behind the special interest Council candidates are Charles Swank and Greg Astley.

Charles Swank, a principal at Grove, Mueller & Swank, CPA, is the Treasurer for City Council candidates Steve McCoid in Ward 4, Daniel Benjamin in Ward 6, and Jim Lewis in Ward 8.

Swank also just happens to be the Treasurer for the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce Create Jobs PAC which had a $44,045.02 cash balance at the beginning of this election season. With six weeks until the May 20 primary election, Swank has already publicly reported to the Secretary of State Election Division transferring $11,000 of payments from the Create Jobs PAC to campaign accounts that he manages for the three Council candidates.

One of these payments was $6,000 to provide 98% of the campaign contributions to Daniel Benjamin running in Ward 6. Two other payments for $2,500 each went to Steve McCoid in Ward 4 and Jim Lewis in Ward 8.

This Create Jobs PAC money and the money of the Home Builders and Realtors PACs and their members account for over 96 percent of the funding for the three special interest candidates and totals over $18,500 so far in the primary race. April 15 is the next big deadline that will provide a window into the flow of special interest money targeting control of the Salem City Council.

Much of the $18,500 of special interest money that Swank has transferred so far is bound for Greg Astley's firm, Astley Consulting, which has begun by billing $11,214.46 to the three campaigns with six weeks remaining before the election.

Based on the 2012 Salem Council race of Warren Bednarz, which paid Astley Consulting $11,240.92 (88 percent) of the $12,668.77 Bednarz spent to get elected, Greg Astley is going to be busy between now and May 20th.

Watch out, Salem (Oregon) voters. Five City Council candidates want you to fork out hundreds of dollars more a year to pay for an vastly expensive unneeded Third Bridge across the Willamette River.

As pointed out by the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog, an advocate for smart cost-effective urban design, these tax and spend candidates are advocates for the $400 million bridge that would do nothing to ease congestion, while displacing dozens of homes and businesses.

Fortunately, there are four candidates who care about both the green cash in your wallet and keeping Salem's precious riverfront green and beautiful -- rather than being uglified by a freeway'ish bridge that would channel its traffic close by Wallace Marine Park and decimate natural areas.

Tax and spend. A good thing when the spending and taxes are necessary. A bad thing when special interests lobby for wasteful government largesse that doesn't help the general local economy.

Salemians, when it comes time to vote in the May primary election, remember this:

Bassett, Andersen, Swank, and Lor are the City Council candidates who care about your pocketbook. They understand that $400 million is a lot of money. They want taxpayers to keep that money and decide on their own how it is spent, not government bureaucrats.

Now he's known as Slomo on the boardwalk. A 16-minute documentary about him can be viewed on the NY Times site. Well worth watching. Just wait for the ad to finish.

Today I went StreetStriding at Minto Brown Island Park here in Salem, Oregon. I'm totally addicted to this outdoor elliptical bike, which I got about three and half months ago. If I'm not able to do my StreetStrider thing for five to seven miles three days a week, I get bummed out.

This afternoon's ride was done in sunny 60-degree'ish weather. Delightful, after a March that was the second wettest on record in northwest Oregon. More people than usual were out and about on the Minto Brown paved trails.

Two groups of women asked me questions about the StreetStrider. This happens often -- people wanting to know what the heck this weird-looking yellow "bike" I'm riding is all about.

After explaining the basics, I always get around to extolling how much fun it is to ride the StreetStrider. I show how, by shifting weight from one leg to the other, the bike naturally zigs and zags from side to side, the amount of zigging and zagging controllable by the rider.

I like a lot, most of the time.

An exception is when I approach some people coming the other way on one of the park's narrow trails. Then I shift to a nearly straight-ahead riding style, to show them that this old guy on a bizarre bike isn't going to run them off their side of the trail.

One of my usual lines when someone asks me about the bike is, "The StreetStrider has been described as skiing on land. It does have that feel of carving back and forth. Same basic feeling as moving from side to side on a longboard/skateboard or surfing."

In the documentary about Slomo, there's a part at about the eight-minute mark where Kitchin talks about his theory of lateral acceleration making us feel good. Below is the transcript that I made.

It's better to watch the film, of course. This part of the documentary has diagrams, illustrations, and footage of longboarders and surfers carving back and forth much like Slomo does on his skates.

And I do on my Streetstrider. Slomo says:

I was always trying to perfect this technique, skating in slow motion. I realized that there was an aspect to lateral acceleration which made many of us feel good. I studied this, and there is a neurological explanation for this thing.

Acceleration stimulates a set of receptors which are in the inner ear, that connects us with the center of the Earth, by gravity. A piece of calcium sits on a membrane so that any change in the relative position of gravity will make this stone roll, and therefore there will be some indication that the body is moving relative to the center of the Earth.

When I skate, the whole idea is to keep a continuous feeling of acceleration, even though it's very small. And if you keep it constant, the feeling of expansion continues to build. Anything where you can get this angle of acceleration feeling, you can use that for meditation, because it puts you in the zone.

Interesting. Slomo could be on to something here. Might help explain why I've become so addicted to the StreetStrider, after a stint of being addicted to longboard land paddling.